Intentional defaulting, not subprime mortgage is the problem

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=davelj]
I’ll grant you that Goldman hasn’t suffered as much as it should. But they are an exception.
[/quote]

Dave,

First let me say that I totally understand that many banks, people that worked at banks and people that invested in banks have and are suffering due to this financial crisis. I totally get your point in that regard, and I’m very glad to hear you say that many of those people will not make the same mistakes again.

But then there’s the issue of Goldman Sachs. (And I suspect there are a couple of other big guys that are riding their wave)

When I see how many Goldman Sachs alum have government jobs, and how Goldman has been made whole on virtually every one of its risky bets I can’t help but be outraged. So I think it’s critical that we all stay away from lumping all banks into one category.

Clearly, most banks are playing by the rules, and doing their best to stay in business. But I find it extremely hard to agree that Goldman Sachs is playing by the rules. Quite the contrary from everything I can see they have been ruthless in their raping the taxpayer, and the fact that so many alums are in the government aiding and abetting this is astonishing.

To me, perp walks are long over due.

[Rt.66]

Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills

[Rt.66]

Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills

[Rt.66]

Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills

[Rt.66]

Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills

[Rt.66]

Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills

[jpinpb]

I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.

[jpinpb]

I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.

[jpinpb]

I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.

[jpinpb]

I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.

[jpinpb]

I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.

[Zeitgeist]

Goldman Sachs the Obama Administration’s Haliburton?

http://cromsworldnews.blogspot.com/2009/07/goldman-sachs-obama-administration.html

[Zeitgeist]

Goldman Sachs the Obama Administration’s Haliburton?

http://cromsworldnews.blogspot.com/2009/07/goldman-sachs-obama-administration.html

[Zeitgeist]

Goldman Sachs the Obama Administration’s Haliburton?

http://cromsworldnews.blogspot.com/2009/07/goldman-sachs-obama-administration.html

[Zeitgeist]

Goldman Sachs the Obama Administration’s Haliburton?

http://cromsworldnews.blogspot.com/2009/07/goldman-sachs-obama-administration.html

[Author]

Posts